She says "Taken on 120mm film and using multiple exposure in a single frame . . ." In an article , she says she used a Holga.

How would you do it in digital?

I think there is more going on than duplicating and rotating an image—see the texture, that usually comes through in the sky of both shots. If it was a simple multiple exposure, with each exposure limited to one half of the frame, you would not see the texture of the other shot coming through each shot.Roger

Why do you assume it is simply two exposures and always the same framing. Why not two exposures with a mask and reversed and then two more exposures of a different framing done the same way. You could do this digitally with multiple exposures in the camera or in photoshop with layers.

I did similar years ago on film... Didn't have a mask but I had something that allowed me to mask the bottom of the frame, then flip the camera over and shooting the same image as a "reflection" since none was at hand. Since the "reflection" was flipped left-for-right, it made people scratch their heads...

Think Holga-on-a-stick, such that it can rotate around its optical axis with whatever is in the center of view as the center of rotation.

Put a black rectangle (possibly covered with black velvet) out in front of the camera a few inches to a few feet, maybe held up by a tripod.

Arrange the Holga so the bottom half of the scene is covered by the black. Expose. Flip the Holga 180 degrees, expose again. Nothing in this scheme needs super critical alignment. If you look at the details nearest the center of those images, on some of them you can see fuzzing near the seam which suggests a slightly out-of-focus mask.

Can't help thinking a lazy-susan rotator is involved somehow. Glue Holga to lazy-susan, attach to tripod somehow. Maybe a stick is glued to the opposite side of the lazy -susan, clamped to a tripod. Pencil marks on tape somewhere. Thing of beauty. I could build something to do this with no more than a $10 bill and a few minutes at Lowe's.

Whenever you seen something that, you just know it all comes down to some really simple scam. The trick is to avoid oversolving the problem which is a too common disease. The solution may even be simpler than I think it is.

edit, and yes, you don't need a rotator at all, just a 1x2 stick about 8 inches long glued to a piece of plywood. To do the 180 flip, just push opposite sides of the camera against the 1x2, and press the camera against the plywood. A few pencil marks could be invaluable. See, I was oversolving! Or I can spend $10K getting an engineer and machinist involved in building the ultimate something. The stories I could tell.

Why do you assume it is simply two exposures and always the same framing.

I have never assumed anything about these images! The quote is from her website and I take your point that she refers to "multiple exposure" (singular) but that could just be a typo and there could well be many exposures.

Your suggestion that there could be four images is interesting. I note that not all her images feature texture/objects in the sky area. Those that do could be made from four shots:

1. Landscape in top half with bottom of the frame masked off. Normal exposure.2. Rotate camera 180º and shoot landscape in prev bottom half with previous top of the frame masked off. Normal exposure.3. Put a thin strip of black card over the strip of land in the centre of the frame to mask off that area. Is this feasible on a Holga???4. Take a shot of something textured to appear in the unmasked area in the top/bottom half of the frame.5. Rotate camera 180º and shoot something textured to appear in the unmasked area in the other half of the frame.

But if shots 1 and 2 are full exposures, shots 4 and 5 would add some light and those areas would then tend to be overexposed. Her shots are always darker in the skies where she has added texture there—see images 1/10 and 3/10. She may have just "fixed" this in Photoshop but I don't think she uses PS.

So how would she have compensated for the additional exposures in the sky areas?

Also, what I mention about masking off the centre strip might just be possible with an SLR but she uses a Holga and she could not be certain how deep the middle strip was.

Blending several shots taken with camera rotation or such in between is far easier with digital than film (e. g. you can fix slight alignment errors before blending if needed) but in this case it seems even easier: just take one shot, make a copy rotated 180 degrees, and blend with the original.

I have never assumed anything about these images! The quote is from her website and I take your point that she refers to "multiple exposure" (singular) but that could just be a typo and there could well be many exposures.

Your suggestion that there could be four images is interesting. I note that not all her images feature texture/objects in the sky area. Those that do could be made from four shots:

1. Landscape in top half with bottom of the frame masked off. Normal exposure.2. Rotate camera 180º and shoot landscape in prev bottom half with previous top of the frame masked off. Normal exposure.3. Put a thin strip of black card over the strip of land in the centre of the frame to mask off that area. Is this feasible on a Holga???4. Take a shot of something textured to appear in the unmasked area in the top/bottom half of the frame.5. Rotate camera 180º and shoot something textured to appear in the unmasked area in the other half of the frame.

But if shots 1 and 2 are full exposures, shots 4 and 5 would add some light and those areas would then tend to be overexposed. Her shots are always darker in the skies where she has added texture there—see images 1/10 and 3/10. She may have just "fixed" this in Photoshop but I don't think she uses PS.

So how would she have compensated for the additional exposures in the sky areas?

Also, what I mention about masking off the centre strip might just be possible with an SLR but she uses a Holga and she could not be certain how deep the middle strip was.

More thinking required!Roger

Why normal exposure? Why not half for a two exposure overlap?

Why don't you think she is scanning and processing the film? It is not that hard to control some of that in an optical darkroom either. I would imagine she has to have some control in post, if only to control the exposure and contrast.

You don't need an SLR to simply position a mask to hide half the frame. A holder can be made for that. I had a dark slide mask for a 4x5 camera that just slide into the film holder. She could easily make a holder to slide onto the lens with a mask. The mask could be rotated with the camera and if the holder is fixed, registration would be easy.

Roger, if she's doing these in camera then she's come up with a way to adjust the exposure so that, in the end, the exposure is correct in total. Maybe she's using ND filters, I'm not sure. Not having used a Holga I don't know how much adjustability you have but I don't think it's much. If you can adjust the ISO and set, say, ISO 400 when using ISO 100 film and have the exposure settings adjust automatically, that will effectively underexpose each image so that, in total, the exposure is 'correct' at the end.

I did a lot of multiple exposure photography with film and that's what I'd do. If I were shooting ISO 100 film, and wanted to do 8 shots, I'd adjust the ISO to 800. If I wanted 16 shots, I'd set the ISO to 1600. The camera would adjust the exposure to compensate. Once all 8, or whatever number, underexposed images are layered on top of each other, the total is correct. Now, with digital and some Nikon cameras (still the only ones as far as I know that can do ME), the camera will automatically adjust the 'gain' and effectively underexpose each image so that when all are combined, the total exposure is correct. You could do it yourself by adjusting the ISO and turn 'auto-gain' off in the ME menu.

Masking off certain parts of the frame isn't difficult either. Again, this is something that photographers have been doing for many years. It can be as simple as holding a piece of black cardboard over the lens. The black board can be taped on. There are filters available that will block light from half the frame too. Many ways to do this.

If she's scanning the film and combining the images digitally, that's even easier.

Yup all the above and I suspect Photoshop.I still shoot film for fun, many years ago I shot 5x4 for a living making masks and double exposure is not difficult, I still think these have been polished up with PS.What ever technique ,I like them.

Great discussion! I can confirm that all of the photos in both 'Internal landscapes' and my new body of work 'Layered in space' are all:

Shot on 120mm film - Either Kodak Portra NC or VC 160 Each shot is double exposure and done in cameraAll shot on a Holga (plastic toy camera) and hand-held, no tripod neededDrum scanned and basic digital retouching to optimize for printing in Lightroom.

It's a wonderful photographic process for me and can be very experimental at times, but always yields interesting results. I love that the process has generated discussion as well - the best result of creating art.

Great discussion! I can confirm that all of the photos in both 'Internal landscapes' and my new body of work 'Layered in space' are all:

Shot on 120mm film - Either Kodak Portra NC or VC 160 Each shot is double exposure and done in cameraAll shot on a Holga (plastic toy camera) and hand-held, no tripod neededDrum scanned and basic digital retouching to optimize for printing in Lightroom.

It's a wonderful photographic process for me and can be very experimental at times, but always yields interesting results. I love that the process has generated discussion as well - the best result of creating art.